Etymological Fallacy

Description: The assumption that the present-day meaning of a word should be/is similar to the historical meaning. This fallacy ignores the evolution of language and heart of linguistics. This fallacy is usually committed when one finds the historical meaning of a word more palatable or conducive to his or her argument. This is a more specific form of the appeal to definition.

Logical Form:

X is defined as Y.

X used to be defined as Z.

Therefore, X means Z.

Example #1:

Elba: I can’t believe the art critic said my artwork is awful!

Rowena: He must have meant it in the old sense of the word -- that your artwork inspired awe!

Elba: Yes! That makes sense now!

Explanation: “Awful” did once mean “to inspire awe”, but there are very few, if any, people who continue to use the term in this way. Just because it makes her feel better, it cannot be assumed.

Example #2:

Steve: I think it is fantastic that you and Sylvia are getting married!

Chuck: I cannot believe you think my getting married only exists in my imagination! That is what fantastic means, after all.

Explanation: Yes, it is true "fantastic" was once most commonly used as existing only in the imagination, but common use of this word has a very different definition.

Exception: If a bogus, “modern”, definition is made up by a questionable source, that won’t make all other sources “historical”.

What about words like for example the 'N-word' and 'Coolie' when even not using it in a meaning that is desparaging, people will still take offense at it because of it original/historical meaning. Would you then go as far as to say that those people in such a case also have committed the etymological fallacy nonetheless? Or is there somehow an exception attached to such cases?

People should be sensitive to all definitions. If they go for it and use the term, and the other takes offense, they should say they meant no offense and apologize. If they try to justify it (make it an argument), then we are getting into the area of fallacies.

@Bo Bennett, PhD: It may be me, but that explanation is somewhat vague to me. No sweat! Let's put it into perspective then. Let's say, since I am an African American, I'm having a friendly conversation with a white male friend of mine and all of a sudden during our convo he uses the 'N-word' clearly not in hostile way but still I immeadialtely freaked as a result of that. He(my white friend) apologized and explained to me that he didn't mean it in a pejorative way at all, but I'm not having none of that because of the historical meaning of that word. Am I committing the etymological fallacy by only focussing on the historical meaning of the word eventhough conext, connotation and the way of expression clearly suggest that my friend didn't use the word in a desparaging way?

@Anthony: In short, if you believe your friend was sincere and you hold a grudge or refuse to accept his apology, then yes, you are being unreasonable. Understand that this my (professional) opinion as it would apply to this fallacy.

Become a Logical Fallacy Master. Choose Your Poison.

Logically Fallacious is one of the most comprehensive collections of logical fallacies with all original examples and easy to understand descriptions; perfect for educators, debaters, or anyone who wants to improve his or her reasoning skills.

Get the book, Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett, PhD by selecting one of the following options: